https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166690 Prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act required prior clearance under the Government circular read with the Act, and the absence of such clearance meant the complaint was not properly instituted. The conviction was also found unsustainable because it depended on admissions and ledger extracts that were not proved in accordance with law, while the statutory presumption under Section 67 could not be invoked. The prosecution further failed to establish that the accused fell within the statutory definition of a gold dealer or that the articles met the required purity standard. Secondary evidence requirements under the Evidence Act were not satisfied. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:48:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166690 Prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act required prior clearance under the Government circular read with the Act, and the absence of such clearance meant the complaint was not properly instituted. The conviction was also found unsustainable because it depended on admissions and ledger extracts that were not proved in accordance with law, while the statutory presumption under Section 67 could not be invoked. The prosecution further failed to establish that the accused fell within the statutory definition of a gold dealer or that the articles met the required purity standard. Secondary evidence requirements under the Evidence Act were not satisfied. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 16 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166690